That is an interpretation of yours and perhaps of many other Muslims,
but you cannot be 100% sure since neither the Quran or hadith say he is a
prophet. He could have been mentioned because he was the first man
created.

Again, it is not your place to tell Muslims how to interpret the Quran. Your interpretation is meaningless because:

1. You are not a Muslim,

2. Muslims unanimously believe that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet, and,

3. You don't believe that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet.

As I said, the very fact that Adam (pbuh) was included in the same list as Noah (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh) shows that he was also a prophet. Your claim that he was included "because he was the first man created" is based on your own opinion and authority, which means nothing since you are not a Muslim nor are you an Islamic scholar.

Originally posted by TG12345

This hadith also does not say that Adam was the first prophet, or that
he was a prophet at all, which is something you are claiming.

This is irrelevant. As I said, the fact that Noah (pbuh) is specifically referred to as the "first messenger" and not the "first messenger and prophet", means that Adam (pbuh) was the first prophet.

Originally posted by TG12345

Neither Jews or Christians believe that Noah's son died in the flood, yet that account found its ways into the tafsir.

That's because it is in the Quran:"So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and
Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest):
"O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!" The son replied: "I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me
from the water." Noah said: "This day nothing can save, from the
command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy! "And the waves
came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood." (11:42-43)

Neither this story nor the belief that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet are found in Jewish traditions. Therefore, they cannot be the source the tafsirs consulted.

Originally posted by TG12345

It is just interesting because you are so careful in doing research,
which often is good, and tell me I should not assume based on sources
that are not the Quran or hadith... yet in spite of the fact they do not
say Adam was a prophet, you maintain that he was.

They do say that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet, albeit implicitly. Muslim scholars are unanimous on this matter.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

Here is some more evidence from the Quran that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet:

"Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful." (2:37)

The fact that he received revelation from Allah (swt) implies that he was a prophet.

Salaam Alaikum islamispeace. Thank you for your response.

Does the Quran or hadith say that only prophets receive words of inspiration from God? Note the word used is "inspiration", not revelation. Is there any evidence of Adam sharing this inspiration with other people, something a prophet would do?

The Arabic word used is "kalimatin", which means "words". The Yusuf Ali translation adds "of inspiration", but the meaning is still clear. Adam (pbuh) learned these words directly from Allah (swt). In other words, he received revelation.

The next verse tells Adam and Eve that they will receive "guidance", and as I pointed out, God sent His guidance to people through His prophets. Adam's people would have received God's guidance through Adam (pbuh).

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

Not at all. The prophets taught that God is One, not three in one, which is what Paul taught. He also worshiped Jesus as "God", whereas the Quran states:

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."" (5:17)

Therefore, Paul could not have been a "prophet".

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

That is an interpretation of yours and perhaps of many other Muslims,
but you cannot be 100% sure since neither the Quran or hadith say he is a
prophet. He could have been mentioned because he was the first man
created.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Again, it is not your place to tell Muslims how to interpret the Quran. Your interpretation is meaningless because:

1. You are not a Muslim,

2. Muslims unanimously believe that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet, and,

3. You don't believe that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet.

You aren't a Christian either and don't believe the Bible is God's word, yet in our debate you have argued Mark 10:18 states Jesus is not God... although the vast majority of Christians and Biblical scholars will tell you that in the passage Jesus is affirming, not denying His divinity. I don't tell you it is not your place to tell Christians how to interpret the Bible.

Having said this, if Islam is based on what is in the Quran and hadith, the fact remains that neither explicitly says that Adam was a prophet. Whether or not Muslims unanimously believe he was or wasn't doesn't change this fact.

Originally posted by islamispeace

As I said, the very fact that Adam (pbuh) was included in the same list as Noah (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh) shows that he was also a prophet. Your claim that he was included "because he was the first man created" is based on your own opinion and authority, which means nothing since you are not a Muslim nor are you an Islamic scholar.

Fair enough. I am neither a Muslim or a Muslim scholar. The fact remains though that you assume he is a prophet because he is placed alongside Abraham and Moses, who the Quran states were prophets. However, you have no way of knowing 100%.

Originally posted by TG12345

This hadith also does not say that Adam was the first prophet, or that
he was a prophet at all, which is something you are claiming.

Originally posted by islamispeace

This is irrelevant. As I said, the fact that Noah (pbuh) is specifically referred to as the "first messenger" and not the "first messenger and prophet", means that Adam (pbuh) was the first prophet.

You assume it means that, and so may most or all Muslims. Neither the hadith or Quran however affirm or deny this.

Originally posted by TG12345

Neither Jews or Christians believe that Noah's son died in the flood, yet that account found its ways into the tafsir.

Originally posted by islamispeace

That's because it is in the Quran:"So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and
Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest):
"O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!" The son replied: "I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me
from the water." Noah said: "This day nothing can save, from the
command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy! "And the waves
came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood." (11:42-43)

Neither this story nor the belief that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet are found in Jewish traditions. Therefore, they cannot be the source the tafsirs consulted.

Why would the tafsir writers use Islamic sources which they believe are true, and non-Islamic sources in their tafsir of the same events?

Originally posted by TG12345

It is just interesting because you are so careful in doing research,
which often is good, and tell me I should not assume based on sources
that are not the Quran or hadith... yet in spite of the fact they do not
say Adam was a prophet, you maintain that he was.

Originally posted by islamispeace

They do say that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet, albeit implicitly. Muslim scholars are unanimous on this matter.

They give details about him that make you believe he was a prophet, but they don't state that he was or was not one way or the other.

Not at all. The prophets taught that God is One, not three in one, which is what Paul taught. He also worshiped Jesus as "God", whereas the Quran states:

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."" (5:17)

Therefore, Paul could not have been a "prophet".

Paul was not a trinitarian, Muslims only wish he was and twist what they can to make it so.

You aren't a Christian either and don't believe the Bible is God's word,
yet in our debate you have argued Mark 10:18 states Jesus is not God...
although the vast majority of Christians and Biblical scholars will
tell you that in the passage Jesus is affirming, not denying His
divinity. I don't tell you it is not your place to tell Christians how
to interpret the Bible.

Actually, if you had read my responses in that thread from the beginning, you would have seen that I used Christian sources to prove that those verses are not even authentic. I also referred to Barnes' Notes to show that the verses, if authentic, were not fulfilled as promised, since there is no evidence in the Bible that any Christian was able to drink poison and survive. Therefore, how can you say that I am telling Christians how to interpret the Bible? I have used Christian sources to make my arguments!

In you case, you have presented no evidence except your own opinions about how to interpret the Quran and Hadiths. You have done so not only on this thread but on others as well.

Originally posted by TG12345

Having said this, if Islam is based on what is in the Quran and hadith,
the fact remains that neither explicitly says that Adam was a prophet.
Whether or not Muslims unanimously believe he was or wasn't doesn't
change this fact.

It does not matter what you think. You are not an expert on Islam and your opinion is far outweighed by Islamic scholars. The Quran and Hadiths are both clear that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change this fact.

Originally posted by TG12345

Fair enough. I am neither a Muslim or a Muslim scholar. The fact remains though that you assume
he is a prophet because he is placed alongside Abraham and Moses, who
the Quran states were prophets. However, you have no way of knowing
100%.

Again, you have no say on this matter. The scholars of Islam agree that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet and they base this on the Quran and Hadiths. End of story.

Since both Noah and Abraham were prophets, it means that Adam was a prophet as well. Other verses also imply that he was a prophet.

In addition, there actually is a hadith in the compilation of Ibn Hibbaan, which is considered to be authentic, which clearly states that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet [1].

Originally posted by TG12345

You assume it means that, and so may most or all Muslims. Neither the hadith or Quran however affirm or deny this.

And your opinions are far outweighed by the unanimous agreement among Muslims.

Originally posted by TG12345

Why would the tafsir writers use Islamic sources which they believe are
true, and non-Islamic sources in their tafsir of the same events?

I have already answered this question several times. The exegetes often times used outside sources to fill-in details of the Quranic narrative which are not found in either the Quran or Hadiths. In the case of one of Noah's sons being drowned in the flood, this is based on the Quran itself. However, on other issues, such as the flood and other events which occurred thousands of years before, they did utilize the Jewish sources when there was no information in the Islamic sources. That is why the tafsirs cannot be considered to be error-free.

Originally posted by TG12345

They give details about him that make you believe he was a prophet, but
they don't state that he was or was not one way or the other.

Irregardless of your personal opinions, the Quran states that Adam (pbuh) received God's words. That makes him a prophet.

Edited by islamispeace - 01 January 2013 at 11:47am

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

Paul was not a trinitarian, Muslims only wish he was and twist what they can to make it so.

Um, there are about 2 billion Christians who believe he was a trinitarian. Don't blame Muslims for what your fellow Christians believe.

You may actually be right that Paul was probably not a trinitarian, since that concept was not developed until decades after Paul. However, you cannot deny that Paul worshiped Jesus (pbuh), whereas Jesus never claimed to be divine and worshiped only God. Hence, Paul could not have been a true prophet.

Edited by islamispeace - 01 January 2013 at 11:57am

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

You aren't a Christian either and don't believe the Bible is God's word,
yet in our debate you have argued Mark 10:18 states Jesus is not God...
although the vast majority of Christians and Biblical scholars will
tell you that in the passage Jesus is affirming, not denying His
divinity. I don't tell you it is not your place to tell Christians how
to interpret the Bible.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Actually, if you had read my responses in that thread from the beginning, you would have seen that I used Christian sources to prove that those verses are not even authentic. I also referred to Barnes' Notes to show that the verses, if authentic, were not fulfilled as promised, since there is no evidence in the Bible that any Christian was able to drink poison and survive. Therefore, how can you say that I am telling Christians how to interpret the Bible? I have used Christian sources to make my arguments!

LOL. Speaking of actually reading what the other person wrote, you may want to take into account that I wrote Mark 10:18 which, in our debate (off forum), you stated shows that Jesus did not dare to compare Himself to God.

And Jesus said unto him,.... The same as in Mat_. 19:17, See Gill on Matthew 19:17.

Why
callest thou me good? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or
as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this
young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his
proper deity:

there is none good, but one, that is, God; some
render it, "but one God", as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic
versions; and so the words are a proof of the unity of the divine being,
and agree with Deuteronomy 6:4,
but are not to be understood to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit,
who, with the Father, are the one God: nor do these words at all
militate against the deity of Christ, or prove that he is not God, as
the Jew objects (a); seeing this is not to be understood of the person
of the Father, in opposition to the Son and Spirit, who are equally
good: nor does Christ, in these words, deny himself to be God, but
rather tacitly suggests it; since he is good in the same sense in which
God is good: in Matthew it is added, "but if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments", Matthew 19:17,
this Christ said not as his sense, that the way to eternal life lies in
keeping the commandments of the law; but he speaks in the language of
the Pharisees, and of this man; and his view is, to bring him to a sense
of the impossibility of obtaining eternal life by these things, as the
sequel shows: wherefore the above Jew (b) has no reason to confront the
followers of Jesus with this passage, as if it was a concession of his,
that it is impossible any should be saved without keeping the commands
of the law of Moses.

(a) R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 19. p. 408. (b) Ib.

http://bible.cc/mark/10-18.htm

Most Christians also interpret it this way. Yet you, who are not a Biblical scholar, and many Muslims, interpret it to mean Jesus is saying He is not God.

I don't get angry at you for providing your interpretation of some passages in the Bible or tell you that "your interpretation is meaningless" although most Christians and most Biblical scholars would disagree with you on that.

Christian scholars are human beings. So are Muslim scholars. People are not infallible. Only God is. It is possible for a majority of scholars, scientists, lawmakers, teachers, professors, humanity to be wrong about something.

We are allowed to question their interpretations and views. They are not God.

Originally posted by islamispeace

In you case, you have presented no evidence except your own opinions about how to interpret the Quran and Hadiths. You have done so not only on this thread but on others as well.

You have presented no evidence before writing this post, that the Quran says Adam is a prophet.

On the subject of the other threads, I am assuming you refer to the Great Flood, I have presented evidence of not only tafsir writers but also other scholars (I wrote that post a few hours ago, so I don't know when it will be up) but also a fatwa that states it was global and that it did drown all humanity, as well as versions of the Quran which state that the people on the Ark were "ancestors" and "mankind".

I look forward to seeing evidence of scholars that state the Flood was a regional event.

Originally posted by TG12345

Having said this, if Islam is based on what is in the Quran and hadith,
the fact remains that neither explicitly says that Adam was a prophet.
Whether or not Muslims unanimously believe he was or wasn't doesn't
change this fact.

Originally posted by islamispeace

It does not matter what you think. You are not an expert on Islam and your opinion is far outweighed by Islamic scholars. The Quran and Hadiths are both clear that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change this fact.

Your opinion that in Mark 10:18 Jesus said He is not God matters even less then, since you are not an expert on Christianity and your opinion is far outweighed by Biblical scholars. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't change this fact.

In spite of this, I will not go around telling you that your views don't matter, because my faith is strong enough to hear and refute your statements and trying to shut down a conversation is a form of weakness in my view by claiming "this is what the majority of scholars think so you have no say in the matter".

Originally posted by islamispeace

In addition, there actually is a hadith in the compilation of Ibn Hibbaan, which is considered to be authentic, which clearly states that Adam (pbuh) was a prophet [1].

Thank you for finally showing a hadith that states this!!!! In light of this, I agree with you that there is definitely proof that according to Islam, Adam was a prophet.

Originally posted by TG12345

You assume it means that, and so may most or all Muslims. Neither the hadith or Quran however affirm or deny this.

And your opinions are far outweighed by the unanimous agreement among Muslims.

Originally posted by TG12345

Why would the tafsir writers use Islamic sources which they believe are
true, and non-Islamic sources in their tafsir of the same events?

Originally posted by islamispeace

I have already answered this question several times. The exegetes often times used outside sources to fill-in details of the Quranic narrative which are not found in either the Quran or Hadiths. In the case of one of Noah's sons being drowned in the flood, this is based on the Quran itself. However, on other issues, such as the flood and other events which occurred thousands of years before, they did utilize the Jewish sources when there was no information in the Islamic sources. That is why the tafsirs cannot be considered to be error-free.

Fair enough. Is it fair to say what is contained in them is only certified as true by Muslims if it is also found in the Quran or hadith that are considered authentic?

Originally posted by TG12345

They give details about him that make you believe he was a prophet, but
they don't state that he was or was not one way or the other.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Irregardless of your personal opinions, the Quran states that Adam (pbuh) received God's words. That makes him a prophet.

I agree now that Islam teaches Adam is a prophet, based on Ibn Hibbaan's sahih.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.